Massive Progression Overhaul - Destroy Bots

[Robben_DuMarsch]

It's very easy to answer this question, if you get away from the semantical/ethical argument of what is good or bad, which you seem to be so inclined to fall back on.
I assume:

1. Good = More Players. Bad = Less Players.
2. SOME players do not have access to, or the ability and desire to create for themselves, bots.
3. SOME players are less likely to play the game because of the effects of botting and alting.

Botting and alting creates:
- Insurmountable advantages for those that bot vis a vis those that do not bot
- Accelerated growth of quality
- Item inflation that is irrelevant to botters, but devalues all the actions of non-botters
- Non-competitive play for casual players as they can no longer compete in stats
- The ability to effortlessly replace dead characters from PvP for Botters, rendering the game permadeath for non-botters, and de facto not-so for botters.

4. MORE players would play the game without botting, than would with botting.

Ergo,
Botting = bad.
No botting = good.

That said, you are not being productive by throwing around a bunch of fallacious statements and pointed questions which are drawn from, and lead to, fallacious conclusions.
Do you aim only to troll or derail positive discussion?

If not, I invite you to draw the minor inferences that normal discussions, between normal human beings, require.

[Mafious]

MACHINES ARE TAKING OUR JOBS!!!

[Ysh]

It's very easy to answer this question, if you get away from the semantical/ethical argument of what is good or bad, which you seem to be so inclined to fall back on.
I assume:

1. Good = More Players. Bad = Less Players.
Fair.
2. SOME players do not have access to, or the ability and desire to create for themselves, bots.
Fair.
3. SOME players are less likely to play the game because of the effects of botting and alting.
Fair. Of course, SOME players are more likely to play the game because of the effects of botting and alting.
Botting and alting creates:
- Insurmountable advantages for those that bot vis a vis those that do not bot
Insurmountable is disputed. Otherwise fair.
- Accelerated growth of quality
Fair.
- Item inflation that is irrelevant to botters, but devalues all the actions of non-botters
Irrelevant? No. Less relevant? Yes. Somewhat fair.
- Non-competitive play for casual players as they can no longer compete in stats
Fair.
- The ability to effortlessly replace dead characters from PvP for Botters, rendering the game permadeath for non-botters, and de facto not-so for botters.
Effortlessly? No. Less effort? Yes. Somewhat fair.
4. MORE players would play the game without botting, than would with botting.
Disputed, see previous posting.

Ergo,
Botting = bad.
No botting = good.
Disputed, see above.

My comment in bold, above.

Let me try this one:

It's very easy to answer this question, if you get away from the semantical/ethical argument of what is good or bad, which you seem to be so inclined to fall back on.
I assume:

1. Good = More Players. Bad = Less Players.
2. SOME players do not have access to, or the ability and desire to create for themselves groups, or play with friends.
3. SOME players are less likely to play the game because of the effects of group play.
Grouping creates:
- Insurmountable advantages for those that play in group vis a vis those that play alone
- Accelerated growth of quality
- Item inflation that is irrelevant to groups, but devalues all the actions of solo players
- Non-competitive play for casual players as they can no longer compete in stats
- The ability to effortlessly replace dead characters from PvP for groups, rendering the game permadeath for solo players, and de facto not-so for group players.
4. MORE players would play the game without groups, than would with groups.

Ergo,
Groups = bad.
No groups = good.


This is why I, in your word, ''fall back on semantical/ethical argument of what is good or bad.'' Your position is to establish bot as some notion exists in class of ''BAD THING'' due to particular qualities of botting which are shared with many other strategy used in the game. Yet these other strategy are not in this class of ''BAD THING'' despite this shared quality. Why is it botting is here? Maybe you can respond to this point of mine instead of use these red herring?

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Why are we complaining about botting, not grouping?

Easy.
Grouping = Good (more players).
Botting = Bad (less players).

You may dispute the assumptions, if you like, but that's the inference I easily draw based on my observations of the game, many of which I have detailed in previous posts.

[shubla]

I think grouping should be destroyed.
How about people that have too poor social skills to form groups with others?
I think only way to play hnh is not to bot and play alone.

[Ysh]

Easy.
Grouping = Good
Botting = Bad.

You may dispute the assumptions, if you like, but that's the inference I easily draw based on my observations of the game, many of which I have detailed in previous posts.

The actual difference between our position is this, I think: When looking wholesale at game and making intuitive assumption, I think hatred for bot is arbitrary designation. You think it is not arbitrary and base it on some reasoning. This reasoning is partially justify by these intuitive assumption you make. Except some of these assumption you make are not intuitive to me, and what is intuitive to me is opposite of you. As such, neither of us can be argue using ''objective fact'' and we are at impasse. Unfortunate for me that you opinion seeks to limit my freedoms.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Easy.
Grouping = Good
Botting = Bad.

You may dispute the assumptions, if you like, but that's the inference I easily draw based on my observations of the game, many of which I have detailed in previous posts.

The actual difference between our position is this, I think: When looking wholesale at game and making intuitive assumption, I think hatred for bot is arbitrary designation. You think it is not arbitrary and base it on some reasoning. This reasoning is partially justify by these intuitive assumption you make. Except some of these assumption you make are not intuitive to me, and what is intuitive to me is opposite of you. As such, neither of us can be argue using ''objective fact'' and we are at impasse. Unfortunate for me that you opinion seeks to limit my freedoms.

Correct. Which is something you could have inferred immediately when we disagreed regarding what was obviously "intuition."
Welcome to the real world, where facts and propositions are weighed, not absolute.

The ultimate arbiter of our propositions here are the developers.
Fortunately, they are not so paralyzed in their ability to draw conclusions.

[sMartins]

Bots, alts, custom clients and all that shit is not the main issue of the game, right now....

[Ysh]

Easy.
Grouping = Good
Botting = Bad.

You may dispute the assumptions, if you like, but that's the inference I easily draw based on my observations of the game, many of which I have detailed in previous posts.

The actual difference between our position is this, I think: When looking wholesale at game and making intuitive assumption, I think hatred for bot is arbitrary designation. You think it is not arbitrary and base it on some reasoning. This reasoning is partially justify by these intuitive assumption you make. Except some of these assumption you make are not intuitive to me, and what is intuitive to me is opposite of you. As such, neither of us can be argue using ''objective fact'' and we are at impasse. Unfortunate for me that you opinion seeks to limit my freedoms.

Correct. Which is something you could have inferred immediately when we disagreed regarding what was obviously "intuition."
Welcome to the real world.

I have find that sometime the men will believe some thing that he has hear without doing this thinking for himself. Sometime when you work through his logic with him, he can see his learned conclusion does not fit is own value. Othertime the act of moving through his logic with him can allow me to understand this man's position in new light and in turn understand this man, perhaps change even my own position. I appreciate your grace and complete lack of impertinence as I offer to you this ability to agree to disagree here.

[Robben_DuMarsch]

Thank you Ysh, if you were sincerely trying to be constructive.